The Impeachment Puzzle

[broncofan]

I looked at the section in the 1971 act and it says "it shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money, or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation in connection with a Federal, State, or local election." It goes on to prohibit solicitations of such contributions using the same language.

I haven't read any cases interpreting this language but I imagine it comes down to "other thing of value". Perhaps a simple endorsement would not be considered a thing of value exchanged, since foreign nationals can express their views, but appearing on the campaign trail would.

I know this language doesn't help much without the interpretation of it but we can speculate about what makes sense. Perhaps if it is the type of activity that people generally do gratuitously like appear one time it's not a contribution, whereas if it requires a certain output of time and effort like campaigning it's a thing of value. In addition, if you have to bargain for it and make a reciprocal promise or commitment, it looks a lot like something of value.

For all Dershowitz' playing down of the simple meaning of quid pro quo, perhaps that's the key. If there's an exchange then it must be of value because you had to bargain for it. So if you solicit opposition research on Biden, and you have to use alternating incentives like inducements and threats, it must be of value. Just a thought.

[Stavros]

If there's an exchange then it must be of value because you had to bargain for it. So if you solicit opposition research on Biden, and you have to use alternating incentives like inducements and threats, it must be of value. Just a thought.

Thanks, and I think this last comment is crucial, because it was not just 'can you do me a favour' it was a phone call preceded by Rudolph Giuliani Jr's 'personal' campaign, fought against the US and Americans with tremendous vigour. Can I assume that Giuliani cannot give evidence in the Senate Trial because of 'attorney-client privilege'? And I note that when the President's Counsel were asked, yesterday, to clarify who was paying Giuliani's bills if he was/is working for the President for free, the man who replied made a point of not answering the question, in fact I don't think he even mentioned Giuliani by name!
So who is paying the bills? And isn't this a pertinent question?

[Stavros]

I watched as much as I could of today's proceedings in the Senate via the NYT website. It is a pity that the cameras do not pan across the chamber so that we can so who is there and what they are doing, and unlike in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, a speaker cannot be interrupted to answer a question. In addition, the lead counsel for the defence rambled on and on to the extent that I wondered if I should go to bed early, an additional sleep-inducing component being the football on BBC-1 which was dire, but as it was barely 8pm I struggled on.

The bizarre moment came with David Schoen arguing that the intent behind the Impeachment is to prevent Trump from running for office again, thereby depriving his supporters of the right to vote for him, when the Impeachment proceedings are taking place because of the strenuous efforts Trump made for two months to prevent the votes of the majority in the 2020 election from being certified -on the one hand a prima facie case of an attempt to strip the voters of their choice in November 2020, with an hypothesis that cannot be proven -a) that Trump wants to run again, and b) in doing so will receive as many or even more votes. The Impeachment, moreover, is about the way in which Trump sought to reverse the election, and the extent to which he is responsible for the illegal, indeed, the Sedition that took place on the 6th January, as any attempt to interfere with the business of Congress is defined in US Law as Sedition.

I am not sure if the Plaintiffs can prove Trump is responsible for the Seditious acts of the 6th of January, but the evidence is stark that he attempted to reverse the election result through illegal means -the phone call with election officials in Georgia being one instance, the repeated calls to Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election in the Senate, even as the riot was in progress, being another.

It will be interesting, if academic, to listen to the rebuttal of Schoen's arguments about Due Process, and whether or not a President no longer in office can be Impeached, but as one of the NYT commentators pointed out, the Trial in the Senate could have proceeded when Trump was still in Office, but McConnell declined to give the Senate the opportunity to do so. Thus the argument that any President could violate his or her Oath of Office on their last day and resign before any Impeachment proceedings begin, is licence to violate the Oath, break the law, indeed, do whatever they want, and that is the opposite of what the Constitution allows.

Does it matter that the proceedings are not being chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

[filghy2]

The bizarre moment came with David Schoen arguing that the intent behind the Impeachment is to prevent Trump from running for office again, thereby depriving his supporters of the right to vote for him, when the Impeachment proceedings are taking place because of the strenuous efforts Trump made for two months to prevent the votes of the majority in the 2020 election from being certified

It's also bizarre to argue simultaneously that he can't be impeached because he is no longer in public office but it would not be right to prevent him from running for office again. In any case, a guilty verdict would not automatically prevent him running again, as that would require a separate vote.

[Stavros]

I watched all of yesterday's proceedings. It was an impressive display if the argument is that the riot on the 6th of January was the logical culmination of a deliberate attempt by Trump to discredit the election, starting months before it had even taken place. The graphic footage demonstrated how physically close the rioters came to their targets, the hammering on the door of Nancy Pelosi's suite as a member of her staff whispered into a phone was particuarly chilling.

What struck me most because I had not been able to see it, was the timeline on the day that traced the events from noon when Trump began his speech, through the events as they unfolded, but crucially, the tweets, and one that is surely the most damning of all, because as soon as he tweeted it, demonstrators, one with a bull horn, were reading it to an already frenzied mob -it raises the truly awful prospect that had they been able to 'get to' the VP, serious violence would have taken place. The tweet in question reads-

“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

That Pence made it clear to Trump on the morning of the 6th that he could not, and would not violate his Oath of Office has to a great extent buttressed his reputation after years in which his 'servant leadership' attitude enabled Trump to do what he wanted, and we assume Pence rarely succeeded in changing Trump's mind on anything, just as it is alleged members of Trump's staff failed to persuade him to issue a call to the rioters to stop, and go home. Indeed, it is these events in the afternoon of the riot that must surely be the most damning evidece against Trump. With the irony that his passion for tweeting what he is thinking has become the paper trail of a man who appears to have no intention of abiding by his own Oath of Office.

A final thought is that among the messages of support posted before the events of that day, the 'cavalry is coming' was in fact spelt 'calvary', a correction which the Manager corrected, though the allusion to the Crucifixion may be a 'Freudian slip' worthy of analysis.

To be provocative, on the basis of yesterday's evidence, could the Managers offer Senators a choice in their summing up -to contrast the dutiful Pence with the reckless Trump, to the extent that they might argue -a vote to acquit the President is equivalent to marching Mike Pence to the Scaffold? Some choice -but which one would the Republican Senators make?

[Stavros]

Is this the most chilling aspect of the footge played in the Senate yesterday?

"...a number of Republican senators – Rand Paul, Rick Scott, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio, among others – made a point of ignoring the film. They flipped through papers as a man screamed in pain in the background. Their refusal to look up and find out what was wrong was meant to send out a signal. They scribbled notes as the crowd hunted Mike Pence. Mitch McConnell, who appears in the film, apparently showed no reaction."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ust-be-watched

Stacey Plaskett was the only Black woman in the Senate yesterday, and you can be sure 'all of the above' were too busy checking their phones to look at her. 'If the look don't fit, you must acquit'.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Is this the most chilling aspect of the footge played in the Senate yesterday?

"...a number of Republican senators – Rand Paul, Rick Scott, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio, among others – made a point of ignoring the film. They flipped through papers as a man screamed in pain in the background. Their refusal to look up and find out what was wrong was meant to send out a signal. They scribbled notes as the crowd hunted Mike Pence. Mitch McConnell, who appears in the film, apparently showed no reaction."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ust-be-watched

Stacey Plaskett was the only Black woman in the Senate yesterday, and you can be sure 'all of the above' were too busy checking their phones to look at her. 'If the look don't fit, you must acquit'.

Yes it is the most chilling aspect of the footage played in the US Senate during the 2nd of the Impeachment Trial,not surprised at all that Trump Enablers Rand Paul,Rick Scott,Tom Cotton and Mark Rubio were ignoring the film,because they are just as responsible as their leader Donald-D.A.M.N Trump is for causing the domestic terrorist attack on the US Capital back on January 6th,and have already made up their minds to acquit him,because they don't want to cross him and his delusional supporters and hold on to power. and those that choose acquit him of any wrongdoing despite all the evidence are going to pay for their decisions in the end.

[Stavros]

I was not impressed by Counsel for the former President complaining they were not given enough time to prepare a defence when the trial was deliberately delayed by Mitch McConnell, and at a time when other laywers were hired before they jumped ship. I also felt they often did not ask the questions they were asked.

And it seems a tedious process -a Senator tells the President he has a question. A clerk takes the question on a card to the desk where another clerk hands it to the President, who then hands it to third clerk to read it out. Why not let the Senator stand, and be seen asking the question of the lawyers? Very odd.

Lastly, does anyone know what's behind the blue curtains behind the seat of the President?

[Stavros]

A few more thoughts-

I think the House team cannot prove that Trump has direct responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol, if the evidence is the use f words. He did not tell the crowd at his rally to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and enter the Capitol building to stop the certificaton process.

The problem for the defence team, is that because Mike Pence told Trump that morning he would carry out his duty as VP to preside over the certification, and with no legal cases outstanding, there were no legal or procedural means that could prevent the certification, so what was the meaning of Trumps words when they included slogans like 'Stop the Steal' and 'fight like hell'? Just as important, given the audience he was addressing, whether it was in front of him on the Ellipse, or listening or reading via social media, what did they understand by his words, given what they had been 'chatting' about on social media since December?

It seems to me that the evidence is damning, but can a President persist in claiming the election result is wrong after every attempt to prove so has failed? One could dismiss him as 'deranged', 'deluded' but presumably there is no law against that. One imagines Nixon at the very moment he resigned, believed he had done nothing wrong.

More damning evidence has emerged overnight with the claim Trump refused to take action once the riot had been going for over an hour-

"Kevin McCarthy snapped at Donald Trump when he refused to call off his rioting supporters and reportedly told the president: “Who the f*** do you think you’re talking to?”
The ex-president and the leader of the House Republicans became embroiled in a heated exchange as Mr McCarthy called and begged Mr Trump to intervene, according to CNN.
When Mr Trump told the lawmaker that the rioters were actually antifa, Mr McCarthy bluntly told him that they were in fact a MAGA mob.
“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” replied Mr Trump said, according to lawmakers briefed later by Mr McCarthy."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1801775.html

One wonders what McCarthy would say were he called as a witness -but as both he and Mike Pence seem to have 'made up' with Trump for his shocking and disgraceful behaviour, maybe he would just shrug his shoulders and say 'well that's just Donald', as if Sedition were 'just one of those things' -that comes around every 244 years....?

[filghy2]

It's interesting that the people who normally argue for originalism in interpreting the Constitution have chosen to ignore evidence that the Founding Fathers intended impeachment to apply to ex-presidents.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ounders-468769